Freight Rail Study Evaluation of TCWR Routing Alternatives
Prepared for Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority Mark Amfahr Amfahr Consulting
November 29, 2010
1
Table of Contents
Executive Summary……………………………………………………………………………………………… 3 Introduction and methodology……………………………………………………………………………. 4 Discussion of “Western Connection” issues…………………………………………………………. 5 TCWR grain traffic……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 5
Summary of Alternatives…………………………………………………………………………………….. 7 Chaska Cut‐off…………………………………………………………………………………………. 8 Midtown Corridor…………………………………………………………………………………… 15 Highway 169 Connector………………………………………………………………………….. 23
Exhibits: Terms and abbreviations appearing in the report Chaska Cut‐off Map Midtown Corridor Map Highway 169 Map Cost detail – Chaska Cut‐off alternative Cost detail – Midtown Corridor Alternative Cost detail – Highway 169 Connector Midtown Streetcar Resolution Feb 10, 2010 document Midtown Streetcar Resolution Nov 21, 2006 document Twin Cities & Western Railroad map Twin Cities area map TCWR letter MNDOT map; Minnesota River Valley TCW Operations
2
Executive Summary
In 2009, the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) retained TKDA to conduct an alternatives analysis to identify all possible alternatives for routing Twin Cities and Western Railroad (TCWR) service to/from St. Paul. That study, the TCWR Freight Rail Realignment Study, 2009, identified a number of possible alternatives and evaluated them based upon engineering, freight rail operations, costs and impact to the transportation system. The objective of the analysis was to find a connection that would allow TCWR to operate economically between the Twin Cities metro area and the east end of their route network that currently extends to near Hopkins.
The process began with a broad‐based review that was intended to identify all routes that could physically accommodate TCWR’s freight rail operation between those points within reasonable cost parameters. This initial review identified five routes that had the potential to fit the stated criteria. Those routes were the: Chaska Cut‐off Highway 169 Connector Kenilworth Corridor Midtown Corridor MN&S Connection The conclusion of that study was that Canadian Pacific’s MN&S line through St. Louis Park was the most viable route for TCWR freight rail service in the future. After publication of that report, the St. Louis Park City Council via resolutions 10‐070 and 10‐071 requested that HCRRA provide additional information on the routes that had been recommended for dismissal from further evaluation. Those routes were the Western Connection, the Chaska Cut‐Off, the Midtown Corridor, and the TH 169 Connector.
The purpose of this report is to provide additional information in response to the request put forth in the City of St. Louis Park resolutions.
Below is a table that summarizes the physical and economic characteristics of each route as developed in the study. Each evaluation measure shown below is discussed in the report. Detailed figures supporting each of the items below can be found in the exhibit section:
3
1.0 Introduction and Backgound In 2009, the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) retained TKDA to conduct an alternatives analysis to identify all possible alternatives for routing Twin Cities and Western Railroad (TCWR) service to/from St. Paul. That study, the TCWR Freight Rail Realignment Study, 2009, identified six possible alternatives and evaluated them based upon engineering, freight rail operations, costs and impact to the transportation system. The objective of the analysis was to find a connection that would allow TCWR to operate safely, efficiently, and economically between the Twin Cities metro area and the east end of their network that currently extends to Hopkins. The process began with a broad‐based review that was intended to identify all routes that could physically accommodate TCWR’s freight rail operation between those points within reasonable cost parameters. This initial review evaluated a total of six routes. Those routes were the: Chaska Cut‐off Highway 169 Connector Kenilworth Corridor Midtown Corridor MN&S Connection Western Connection The conclusion of that study was that Canadian Pacific’s MNS route through St. Louis Park was the most viable route for TCWR freight rail service. After publication of that report, the St. Louis Park City Council via resolutions 10‐070 and 10‐071 requested that the HCRRA provide additional information on the routes recommended for dismissal from further evaluation. Those routes include the Western Connection, the Chaska Cut‐Off, the Midtown Corridor, and the TH 169 Connector.
The purpose of this report is to provide additional information in response to City of St. Louis Park resolutions 10‐070 and 10‐071.
An exhibit has been included that may be useful as a reference while reviewing this report. It is titled “Terms and abbreviations”. It provides assistance with the interpretation of many of the unique terms and abbreviations that are specific to the railroad industry, names of government agencies, etc. It can be found in the exhibit section that follows this report.
Background
An important component of the route evaluations is an assessment of the impacts that each route will have upon the operations of TCWR. As the railroad company that will use the route that is selected, TCWR’s interests must be considered to ensure that the route does not negatively impact their ability to conduct their business. An overview of the Twin Cities and Western Railroad’s operations has been provided as an exhibit.
TCWR grain traffic When certain market conditions prevail, grain shippers located along TCWR’s lines will elect to transport their grain by rail to destinations in the Twin Cities area. In the past, grain has moved to elevators at
4
Savage in the southern metro area and to Camden in the north‐central metro. Camden is the location of a public port, open to use by all customers. Savage has terminal elevator facilities owned by Cargill, Cenex Harvest States and Whitebox Commodities. Due to the size of the facilities at Savage and the firms represented there, that destination tends to attract most grain when conditions favor rail/water movement. In the past, grain moving to Savage via TCWR has been handled by way of St. Louis Park and CP’s MN&S line. Using this route TCWR was able to deliver the grain directly to the elevators there, utilizing trackage rights that TCWR has over that line. Unfortunately, the connection that must be used to transition from the east/west CP Bass Lake line to the north/south MN&S line in St. Louis Park is inefficient as it was not designed to be used in this manner. Handling cars between the routes via this inefficient connection presents operational challenges for TCWR and problems for residents of St. Louis Park. The process is slow and difficult for TCWR and is noisy and disruptive to residents, as railcars are switched back and forth in small groups, blocking Louisiana Avenue in the process. It should be mentioned that, when market conditions are favorable, TCWR will handle large volumes of grain to Savage – during two consecutive years the company handled in excess of 10,000 carloads annually to that destination.
While market conditions have not resulted in grain movements to Savage via TCWR since 2002, those conditions can change at any time. Changing market conditions in the future, possibly driven by the completion of the Panama Canal project in 2013, could again make it economically attractive for TCWR’s customers to ship their grain to Savage by rail. It is important to note that the direct routing via the MN&S line is TCWR’s only practical alternative to deliver their customers’ grain to Savage.
With the exception of the Chaska Cut‐off, none of the alternatives included in the 2009 TCWR Rail Realignment Study included a route to Savage that avoided the MN&S. line via St Louis Park.
Auxiliary tracks utilized for switching and car storage At various times, TCWR makes use of certain tracks along its route for purposes of switching/blocking and car storage. Some of those tracks are located along the CP Rail Bass Lake Subdivision in St. Louis Park. Currently, those tracks can accommodate over 300 train cars. The capacity provided by those tracks is important as it supports TCWR’s day to day operating activities. If the route alternative that is ultimately chosen results in TCWR having less auxiliary trackage available to use, the company would not be able to operate as efficiently as it does today.
Methodology The following is an overview of the methodology employed to provide the additional detail requested by the St. Louis Park City Council.
Each alternative was evaluated based upon a common set of evaluation measures listed in the section below. This process was intended to provide a fair and objective analysis that would permit an equitable comparison of all possible routes available for use by TCWR.
In addition to utilizing aerial photography, rail industry records, rail industry standards, field inspections, the private freight rail companies (TCWR, CP, BNSF and UP) were contacted for review and comment on the alternatives.
Chaska cut‐off
5
The following methodology was employed in evaluating the Chaska Cut‐off route. First, a preliminary evaluation was conducted using aerial photographs together with Milwaukee Road engineering documents. This initial step showed that a high percentage of the route that had been abandoned in the 1970s had not yet been developed and that the physical characteristics of the route were not unacceptable for modern train operations (grades, curves, etc). The next step was to conduct a physical inspection of the route. The inspection provided information about the present condition of the proposed route, including the status of bridges, condition of the original right of way, existence of buildings and other structures along the route as well as any other complicating factors that could be identified.
Midtown Corridor The review process for the Midtown Corridor began with an evaluation of the route using aerial photographs together with a review of historic Milwaukee Road engineering documents. This initial step showed that grades and curves were acceptable and that a high percentage of the original route was either still in use or could be easily reconstructed along a preserved rail corridor. The next step was to conduct a physical inspection of the route.
TH 169 Connection The review process for the Highway 169 Corridor began with an evaluation of the route using aerial photographs as well as on‐line mapping resources. This initial step showed that the majority of the original BN alignment was being used as a recreational trail and that it had not been consumed by development with houses or other structures occupying the alignment. The next step was to conduct a physical inspection of the route. The inspection confirmed that a significant number of properties were located along the original alignment.
Evaluation Measures
The following evaluation measures were applied to the alternatives under review.
Sound Engineering In order for an alternative to be considered viable it must meet basic sound engineering principals. To determine what those principals are for the freight rail industry, the following sources were used:
o the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 213 Track Safety Standards,
o the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance‐of‐Way Association, Manual for Railway Engineering; and,
o meetings with TCWR, CP and BNSF representatives.
Specific requirements include:
o Minimum vertical clearance between the top of the rail and an overhead structure is 23 feet.
o Minimum horizontal clearance is 10 feet
6
o Maximum gradient is 1 percent.
o New track is assumed to be 136 pound continuously welded track
Freight Rail Operations This measure is intended to assess the impact of the alternative on freight rail operations with a particular focus on the TCWR operations. The TCWR must be provided with a safe, efficient, & economic connection to St. Paul. In addition, TCWR must retain the ability to transport grain to the Port of Savage.
An important component of the route evaluations is an assessment of the impacts that each route will have upon the operations of TCWR and upon the businesses that the railroad serves in west‐central Minnesota. As the railroad company that will use the route that is selected, TCWR’s interests must be considered to ensure that the route does not negatively impact its ability to conduct business and harm its ability to properly serve its customers. As part of the discussion of each alternative below, items are listed that are intended to quantify many of the operational issues that define a railroad’s ability to conduct its operations efficiently. These evaluation measures may be used to objectively compare the physical features of the various route alternates. If the route that is ultimately selected includes a physical feature that is less favorable to TCWR than what they are faced with today, it may be necessary to provide the company with some form of compensation for that impediment.
Transportation System Impacts This measure is intended to assess the potential for the alternative to impact the transportation system, which includes roads, trails and passenger and light rail transit.
Acquisitions/Displacements This measure identifies the number and type of potential property acquisitions required to implement the alternative. In addition, the estimated cost for the acquisitions is also included. The methodology for calculating the cost estimate included the following,
Estimated Costs (2010$) The estimated cost to construct the alternative including acquisition costs was calculated based upon per unit costs in 2010 dollars. An unallocated contingency of 30 percent was added to the estimated construction costs to account for unknown factors and mitigation.
Potential Environmental Risk This measure is intended to identify the potential for the alternative to affect critical environmental resources and the associated risk to implementation resulting from those potential impacts.
Implementation Factors This measure is intended to present factors that may affect the ability to implement the alternative.
7
Examples of these include the required environmental documentation, permits and agreements required from resource agencies, and agreements from and between the private freight rail companies.
2.0 Evaluation of Alternatives
2.1 The “Western Connection” alternative An alternative, referred to as the Western Connection and as shown in the exhibit, was included in the 2009 analysis as potential alternate route for only the coal traffic transported by TCWR and not for other commodities transported by TCWR. Currently, TCWR trains are loaded with coal west of the Twin Cities and these loaded coal trains are routed through the Twin Cities on the BNSF Wayzata Subdivision, then on Kenilworth, and finally CP’s Bass Lake Spur before heading onto the TCW mainline to final destination. The empty TCWR trains returning to the west are currently routed on the BNSF mainline to Appleton rather than the Kenilworth Corridor and CP’s Bass Lake Spur. Due to the track conditions, TCWR cannot use the Appleton route with loaded coal trains, this route can only be used for empty coal trains. Under the Western Connection alternative, TCWR trains carrying coal from the west would utilize trackage from Appleton to destination on the TCW. This routing known as the “Western Connection”, would utilize interchange points in western Minnesota to permit TCWR’s traffic that moves to/from the west to avoid movement through the Twin Cities. At present, the empty coal trains do operate back to the mines via Appleton, avoiding the Twin Cities. The heavier loaded coal trains are forced to travel eastward to the Twin Cities on BNSF then back west on TCWR to destination. The coal traffic currently moves in 123‐car unit trains at a rate of 28 trains per year.
To enable western traffic to avoid traveling via the Twin Cities, it would be necessary to upgrade certain segments of TCWR’s network and to construct or upgrade the condition of connecting tracks at the interchange points that would be utilized. It would also be necessary to renegotiate and modify transportation contracts, tariffs and/or other agreements to facilitate the alternate routings of cars and trains before this alternative could be implemented.
While this option could provide benefits to those in the Twin Cities metro area by diverting certain traffic flows – especially the long, heavy unit coal trains, it is important to note that a Western Connection would not be practical alternative for the majority of TCWR’s traffic. This is because most TCWR traffic either originates or terminates at points to the east or southeast of the Twin Cities. For this reason, a direct routing via the Twin Cities would provide TCWR’s customers with their best option for service and the lowest costs on their shipments.
While use of one or more of these western connections would result in a reduction in the car and train count on the Twin Cities route alternative that is ultimately selected, those western routings could not be expected to completely replace a direct Twin Cities route for the majority of TCWR’s traffic. Sending eastern traffic via those points would not be acceptable to TCWR’s on‐line customers or to TCWR itself, due to the additional time and cost associated with those more circuitous routes vs. a more direct Twin Cities routing.
8
2.2 Chaska Cutoff
The “Chaska Cutoff” alternative, shown in the exhibit, would reroute TCWR traffic through the City of Chaska in Carver County to reach St. Paul. Under this alternative, TCWR trains would use a combination of existing trackage as well as newly constructed track via Cologne, Chaska, Shakopee and Savage, connecting with Canadian Pacific(CP) and BNSF Railway trackage in St. Paul.
After a review of engineering documents, aerial photos, and a field inspection, it was concluded that the alternative requires the following: a 9.1 mile segment of new track would be constructed on an abandoned Milwaukee Road right‐ of‐way between Cologne and Chaska, a 6100 foot segment of existing but unused Union Pacific trackage that extends through the city of Chaska, a 1.8 mile segment of newly constructed right of way that would cross the Minnesota River valley, connecting to the existing Union Pacific mainline west of Shakopee, Union Pacific’s Mankato Subdivision mainline between Shakopee and St. Paul; the route would connect with the Twin Cities terminal network just west of the St. Paul Union Depot.
The initial evaluation indicated that most of the original alignment west of Chaska could be utilized. However, the evaluation also revealed that the original Milwaukee Road alignment through the town of Chaska had been almost completely parceled out and developed – to the point that this portion of the original route had to be eliminated from consideration. The alignment now being considered follows the existing UP line northward through the town of Chaska where it turns east near the sugar plant to cross the Minnesota River. While this revised alignment was necessary to provide a workable route through the town of Chaska, there are offsetting complications associated with it. The revised alignment would cross the Minnesota River at a new location, with new construction, rather than using the original Milwaukee Road right‐of‐way and embankment that is already in place. As a result, construction plans along the new alignment would be subject to a much more stringent review by the various environmental regulatory agencies than if it had followed the previously existing alignment. While it is possible that a proposal for construction along this new alignment could ultimately be approved, the complications and delay that could be expected from an environmental review of this size and scope greatly reduce the attractiveness of this alternative.
Background Aerial photos and an inspection of the route indicated that the majority of the length of the abandoned corridor west of Chaska is presently unused. Much of the corridor was found to be heavily overgrown with trees, brush and other vegetation indicating that it is not being utilized for recreational or other purposes at present. There are exceptions to this along the alignment in Carver, most notably between Chaska Blvd and Carver Parkway. Portions of the alignment in this area have been developed with single family homes and apartments while other sections have been prepared for construction but have not
9
yet been developed. It is not practical to deviate significantly from the proposed alignment in this area to avoid the developed properties due to the slope and characteristics of the terrain that exist there.
The alignment would utilize existing track from near Hickory Street, at the south end of Chaska, to a point near the United Sugars plant at the north end of the City. Along this corridor of recently abandoned trackage, the track structure, grade crossings and crossing protection are already in place and plans do not envision any significant changes through this area.
Completion of the route through this area would require that a new crossing of the Minnesota River be constructed. That crossing would begin at a point near the United Sugars Plant at the north edge of Chaska. From there, it would head directly east across the valley on a newly constructed embankment. The track would make a connection with the Union Pacific immediately west of Shakopee. The majority of this segment crossing the Minnesota River valley would need to be constructed on property owned or controlled by government agencies.
This analysis assumes that all properties along the route that are in conflict with the proposed alignment would be acquired. The majority of necessary property displacements would be in the Carver / Chaska area, where the original railroad corridor has been utilized for development in several locations by houses, apartments and other structures. The houses that would be impacted are either single‐family dwellings or apartments, located primarily within two small subdivisions that are part of Carver. Because these structures were constructed directly along the former rail alignment, completion of the project would require that they be relocated in all cases. The characteristics of the terrain in the area would not permit relocation of the rail line to avoid the houses.
The specific properties and structures that would be impacted by the construction have been identified in the exhibits that accompany this report and cost estimates have been provided for each. Total land and property acquisition and clearing costs are estimated to be $9.9 million, which includes a 50% factor to account for associated relocation and settlement costs.
Evaluation Measures
Sound Engineering In general, this alternative can be built to freight industry standards for grades, curves, and clearance.
Freight Rail Operations While this alternative provides a connection for TCWR operations to/from St. Paul, it presents some significant issues for TCWR operations. First, the route is significantly longer, approximately 20 miles, than the route currently used by TCWR. A longer route adds significant expense to TCWR operations
Route distance; Cologne ‐ CP St. Paul Yard ‐ MNNR Yard A – Cologne – 102.6 miles round‐trip. This assumes movement via CP’s Merriam Park Subdivision to Yard A and via BNSF back from Yard A. The round‐trip distance via this route exceeds the distance of the other route alternatives, including the Kenilworth route used today, by approximately 20 miles. That additional mileage would result in additional delays and much higher expenses for TCWR.
10
Grades – 0.8% eastward from Cologne to St. Paul; 1.0% westward on the return trip; both grades are found along the Cologne – Chaska segment. In addition, grades exceeding 1% exist along BNSF Midway Subdivision in St. Paul, which would impact train operations when moving westward from St. Paul to Yard A. The ruling grade found along this route is not significantly steeper than those along other routes, but they are much longer. The ruling grade that climbs out of the Minnesota River valley west from Chaska is 1% for approximately five miles; ruling grades along other route alternatives are all one mile or less in length.
Curvature – Maximum curvature encountered along the route is believed to be 3 degrees 30’, along the segment between Cologne and Chaska. This amount of curvature is not seen as a constraint to TCWR’s operations along this route alternative.
Speed – The normal operating speeds anticipated for TCWR trains along this route are: 25 mph Cologne to Shakopee and 30 mph Shakopee to St. Paul except: 10 mph through Chaska and Shakopee; the last 5 miles from St. Paul to Pig’s Eye yard would be limited to 20 mph. These speeds are comparable to those found along the other routes.
Maintenance responsibility ‐ It is anticipated that TCWR would be responsible for normal maintenance on the portions of the line west of Shakopee, including the segment of trackage through Chaska formerly operated and maintained by UP. UP, CP and BNSF would continue to be responsible for their respective segments of the line that TCWR would use east of Shakopee and throughout the Twin Cities network.
Trackage Rights – This route requires the TCWR to secure trackage rights from Union Pacific (UP) along 28 miles of track between Shakopee and Chestnut Street (St. Paul). The remainder of the route would involve operation via Canadian Pacific (CP) and/or joint CP‐BNSF trackage. TCWR already has trackage rights agreements for this operation. Generally speaking, a railroad can expect to have higher levels of train delay when operating over another railroad’s trackage than it would have if operating over its own trackage. With a high percentage of the Chaska route’s mileage being via UP trackage rights, TCWR would most likely experience higher levels of delay to its trains than it would if operating via other routes.
Capacity issues – Freight train traffic along the UP route is relatively light; 10 trains or less on a normal day. However, since many of those trains switch yards or customer facilities rather than just run end‐to‐end, the result is that the route has a relatively high level of “main track occupancy” time per day. This means that the main track would not be available for use by TCWR at many times throughout the day, due to the fact that UP jobs would be working and blocking the track at various locations.
Train routing flexibility – From a connection near the St. Paul Union Depot, TCWR’s trains could operate by way of Division Street to/from all points in the Twin Cities terminal area via existing trackage rights agreements.
Grain traffic to Savage – The route that would be used by TCWR’s trains along UP trackage passes directly in front of the grain elevators at Savage that TCWR has hauled grain to in the past. Tracks providing a physical connection from the UP main track to the elevators are already
11
in place and are used by UP today. The existence of this physical connection offers the possibility that TCWR could access the elevators directly from UP’s Mankato Subdivision as opposed to handling the grain via the St. Louis Park connection (crossing Louisiana Ave) as they have done in the past. While it may be physically possible to access the elevators via UP trackage, it is important to note that Union Pacific would have to approve such access, since they are the owners of the track. Additional discussion of this topic may be found in the Trackage Rights section below. United Sugars in Chaska – By restoring service to the route through Chaska, TCWR would gain a customer that has traditionally received sugar by rail. Reports suggest that United Sugars prefers to receive their sugar by rail but has been forced to use trucks following the loss of rail service due to the collapse of a Union Pacific bridge in March 2007. Records indicate that United Sugars received 600‐800 carloads of sugar per year in the years 2004‐2007. United Sugars has stated in STB filings that the loss of rail service in 2007 negatively impacted their business and that they would benefit from restoration of rail service to Chaska.
Transportation System Impact The sections describes potential impacts to the transportation system of roads, trails, and transitways.
Roads ‐To implement this alternative, 45 at‐grade crossings, five new and 40 existing, would be located along the proposed route. The at‐grade crossings would be a combination of unprotected private and rural crossings, protected two‐lane crossings and fully protected (gates/flashers) four‐lane crossings.
In addition to the at‐grade crossings, the alternative is assumed to require two major grade separations, one for Trunk Highway 212 and the other County Road 40 in Carver County. The freight rail line is assumed to be constructed on an elevated structure over TH 212 and CR 40. Typically, FRA, FHWA and MnDOT would not allow an at‐grade crossing of a state trunk highway or a county road with an active freight rail line. The grade separated crossings will require coordination, permits and approvals from FRA, FHWA, MnDOT, and Carver County.
Railroad bridges – The route would require that a number of significant structures be constructed, including a new crossing of the Minnesota River. Moving from west to east, the first major structure would be the crossing of Trunk Highway 212 just east of Cologne. The proposed alignment calls for the railroad to cross over the four‐lane highway on an overhead bridge approximately one mile east of town. It would also be necessary to span a deep creek valley between Carver and Chaska. The bridge that originally stood at that location has been dismantled so a new one would need to be constructed. Another bridge would be required at the location where the railroad would cross over County Road 40 immediately west of Chaska. The last significant structures would be those required to cross the Minnesota River valley between Chaska and Shakopee. The study assumes that two principal structures would be constructed; one would cross the main channel of the river while a secondary structure would span a section of the floodplain in order to provide additional flow capacity in the event of a flood.
12
Transitways ‐The alternative is not anticipated to have an impact on any existing and future transitways identified in the region’s Transportation Policy Plan (TPP), 2008.
Trails ‐That alternative is not anticipated to have an impact on any existing or planned trails.
Acquisitions / Displacements To implement the alternative it will be necessary to acquire a total of 99 parcels of land , including 19 structures ‐ including 25 individual housing units ‐ would need to be displaced in order to complete the project.
Estimated costs for property acquisitions & displacements The specific groupings of properties and structures that would be impacted by the construction have been identified in the “Chaska Cut‐off Cost Detail” exhibit that accompanies this report and cost estimates have been provided for each.
Construction Costs Major cost elements associated with this alternative include earthwork, new tracks, bridge structures, acquisitions, crossing control and signalization.
Subgrade / earthworks – The route would utilize an abandoned railroad right‐of‐way from Cologne to Chaska, unutilized UP trackage through Chaska, new right‐of‐way across the Minnesota River valley to Shakopee and an existing UP route from Shakopee to St. Paul. There would be minor earthwork required to restore the 7.65 miles of abandoned right‐of‐way to a usable condition. Significant earthwork would be required to construct approaches to the TH 212 overpass (east of Cologne), span County Road 40 (southwest of Chaska) and to cross the Minnesota River Valley. The remainder of the route would use existing railroad infrastructure where no subgrade or earthwork would be required. The estimated cost of subgrade / earthworks to complete this project is $19.2 million. That figure includes an elevated ROW across the Minnesota River valley, elevation west of Chaska, rehab of the abandoned ROW and approaches to the TH 212 bridge east of Cologne.
Track – The alternative requires new track from Cologne to Chaska and from Chaska to Shakopee, 10.8 miles in total. Existing track would be upgraded, as necessary. The total cost for track is estimated to be $13 million, which includes purchase as well as installation of new track (rail, ties, fasteners, etc) along the portions of the route that do not already have track in place.
Bridges – The analysis assumes that all significant structures that existed along the abandoned route would need to be replaced with newly constructed bridges. New bridges would be required to cross TH 212 east of Cologne, to cross the valley at Broadway Street in Carver and to span County Road 40. The segment across the Minnesota River valley would also require new bridge construction, as there was no pre‐existing rail route along the proposed alignment. The total cost for new bridges is estimated at $ 30.3 million, which includes $21 m for the Minnesota River spans, $3.5 m for the Hwy 212 bridge east of Cologne, $2.2m for a bridge west of Chaska and $1.2m for the County Road 40 bridge.
Crossings and crossing protection – It was assumed that all private crossings and secondary (gravel surface) roads would be protected by conventional cross bucks. All paved roads crossing
13
the newly constructed railroad would receive flashers and gate protection. All other crossing protection at existing crossings would remain unchanged. This alternative would result in approximately six new crossings, located along the Cologne‐Chaska segment of the route. The total cost for crossings is estimated to be $2.7m, which includes re‐installation of abandoned crossings west of Chaska and upgrades of existing crossings in Chaska. Crossing protection appropriate for each crossing has been included in the estimate.
Signals & other electrical – It is assumed that the switch connecting the new route to the existing UP Mankato Subdivision main track west of Shakopee would be powered and signaled. Total cost of that installation is estimated to be $1,200,000.
. Contingency costs – A factor of 30% has been added to estimated construction costs to cover the cost of mitigation and unforeseen costs that may arise during final design work and construction. That 30% factor equates to $20.6 million.
Other related costs ‐ $10m has been included as an estimate of the cost of capital improvements that would be required by Union Pacific along their trackage east of Shakopee.
Estimate of total project cost including contingencies: $129.8 million (2010$).
Potential Environmental Risk
Minnesota River valley crossing ‐ The need to cross the Minnesota River valley at location other than the one used by the original Milwaukee Road alignment creates a number of problems for the project. The Minnesota River valley and surrounding areas to the east of Chaska and Carver would be an extremely challenging area to cross with an infrastructure construction project. This is due to the high number of wetlands, park lands and other protected areas that exist there. Since early 2003 MNDOT has been attempting to obtain permission to relocate their Highway 41 alignment through that same area near Chaska. To date, they have not been able to secure permitting that would allow that project to proceed. MNDOT provided comments on our rail crossing study based upon their ongoing efforts to secure permitting for the Hwy 41 crossing:
"The new river crossing would involve coordination and approvals from many agencies, such as the US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of Interior, MN Department of Natural Resources, MN Pollution Control Agency, MN State Historic Preservation Office, and Local watershed districts. Preparation and review of an Environmental Impact Statement could take 3 to 8 years before design and construction could begin. Floodplain forest, wetlands, refuge land, trails, and other natural resources would be impacted. Federal land would require mitigation and if mitigation is not satisfactory, there would be no recourse to obtain necessary right of way. There is also the state protected Seminary Fen, which is home to rare plants and a rare ecosystem."
Given the time and effort that MNDOT has invested in their Highway 41 river crossing and the fact that they have yet to obtain the approvals necessary to advance the project, it must be said that the likelihood of a successful outcome for a railroad project of similar scope in the same area is not good.
14
Implementation Factors
Minnesota River Crossing ‐ A significant factor affecting the ability for this alternative to be implemented is the need to secure environmental clearance to construct a new crossing over the Minnesota River. See the description in the paragraph above regarding the risk associated with assuming environmental clearance can be obtained.
Trackage Implementationrights ‐ of this alternative assumes that TCWR secures trackage rights from Union Pacific (UP) to operate on UP tracks. Officials at Union Pacific were provided with information that described the proposal and were given an opportunity to comment. The company’s position is that they are willing to discuss granting of overhead (end‐to‐end) trackage rights but that some amount of compensation would almost certainly be required as part of the agreement. The compensation would be directed toward enhancement of capacity along their Shakopee – St. Paul route where TCWR’s trains would operate. Union Pacific stressed that the granting of trackage rights and compensation associated with those rights would be the result of a private negotiation between UP and TCWR and that no particular outcome can be guaranteed. In a case such as this, provision of trackage rights to allow TCWR to reach St. Paul would be at the discretion of the Union Pacific – public agencies cannot force a private freight rail company to grant trackage rights to another freight operator.
In addition to securing trackage rights from UP to operate on their tracks, TCWR would need to secure rights from UP to access the grain elevators in Savage if they are to use this route rather than the MNS route for transporting grain to the Port of Savage. As mentioned previously, TCWR’s use of Union Pacific’s Mankato Subdivision offers the possibility of direct access to the grain elevators in Savage. Until a few years ago some of those elevators would regularly receive grain from TCWR origins, with the trains being routed via Cologne, St. Louis Park and CP’s MN&S route to Savage. Even if Union Pacific were to grant TCWR trackage rights to St. Paul, TCWR would not necessarily be allowed access to those elevators. Physical access and commercial terms of access to the elevators at Savage would most likely be a separate topic for negotiation by UP and TCWR with the outcome of that negotiation uncertain. If the parties were to arrive at an agreement that permitted TCWR access to the elevators under commercial terms that were acceptable to TCWR, it would then not be necessary for TCWR to operate to/from the elevators via St. Louis Park and CP Rail’s former MN&S line.
Permits/Agreements ‐ Implementation of this alternative assumes that permits, agreements and clearances are granted by the following entities. These entities have jurisdiction over certain assets or resources that are necessary for the project:
Twin Cities & Western Railway Union Pacific Railroad Canadian Pacific Railroad U.S. Surface Transportation Board Federal Railway Administration ‐
15
Minnesota DOT Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Minnesota Pollution Control Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office Local watershed districts
Due to the length of new route that would need to be constructed as part of the project ‐ along an abandoned right of way as well as a new crossing of the Minnesota River valley (including wetlands and a flood plain area) – completion of the project would require the involvement of an unusually high number of private parties and government agencies.
Summary The preliminary review of the “Chaska Cut‐off” route alternative indicates that it would be a very challenging and expensive project to complete. While this alternative has the potential to provide TCWR with a route to/from the Twin Cities, there are a number of significant drawbacks associated with it. The principal drawbacks of the route are: 1) the complications related to obtaining permission to cross the Minnesota River valley – the EIS and approval process normally takes 3‐8 years but may not be possible at all in this case, 2) the amount of new construction required (approximately 11 miles) and the permitting and review requirements related to that work, 3) the additional mileage and more difficult westbound grades for TCWR vs. the route presently utilized, 4) the less‐than‐optimal location where the route connects to the Twin Cities rail network, 5) the much higher percentage of trackage rights operation (via UP in this case) vs. the present route, 6) The uncertainty related to the use of Union Pacific trackage rights, which are a critical part of the route.
Summary of estimated costs:
Total acquisition costs $17,992,639 Construction $68,821,201 Engineering, Design, Admin $12,387,816 Contingency Factor $20,646,360 UP compensation $10,000,000 Total $129,848,017
2.3 Midtown Corridor The “Midtown Corridor” route was the original east – west mainline used by the Milwaukee Road for the better part of the 20th Century. This line passed through the communities of Cologne, Chanhassen,
16
Hopkins, St. Louis Park, through Minneapolis in a depression, and then to St. Paul via a bridge over the Mississippi River. Freight rail service in the Midtown Corridor was phased out in the 1990s and the corridor was purchased by the Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority (HCRRA) to preserve it for a future transit use. In the 1990s, a commuter bike path, the Midtown Greenway, was constructed on the north side of the corridor with the south side of the corridor preserved for a future transit use.
The city of Minneapolis is interested in using the corridor for the Midtown Streetcar project which would act as a crosstown connector between the existing Hiawatha LRT line and the proposed Southwest LRT line.
The proposed Midtown Corridor alternative would reinstall freight rail tracks on the south side of the Midtown Corridor from West Lake Street in Minneapolis to a connection with the CP tracks just east of TH 55/Hiawatha Avenue. The route alternative is shown in the Exhibit section.
After a review of engineering documents, aerial photos, and a field inspection, it was concluded that the alternative requires the following: existing TCWR and CP Rail trackage from Cologne, through Chanhassen to St. Louis Park, a 4.4 mile segment of new track that would be installed on abandoned Milwaukee Road right‐of‐ way (now owned by HCRRA) between St. Louis Park and the Hiawatha Corridor, existing CP trackage east from the Hiawatha Corridor across the Mississippi River into St. Paul where the track would connect with the Twin Cities terminal network.
Evaluation Measures
Sound Engineering If it is assumed that over nine feet of excavations can occur to gain sufficient clearance under the Midtown Corridor bridges and a grade‐separated connection across TH 55/Hiawatha Avenue can be made, the Midtown Corridor can meet accepted engineering conditions for freight rail operations.
The Midtown Corridor does not currently have sufficient vertical clearance for freight rail operations. To achieve the minimum vertical clearance of 23 feet through the corridor will require excavation of at least six feet through the segment between Hennepin Avenue and TH 55/Hiawatha Avenue. With only a few exceptions, the bridges along the Midtown Corridor currently provide approximately 19’0” of vertical clearance above the existing gravel roadbed. To provide the required minimum overhead clearance of 23 feet, the roadbed would need to be undercut through the “Trench” to lower the roadbed surface by an average of six feet. That depth is necessary to allow for the height of the track structure plus the height of the railcars and still provide safe clearances beneath the overhead bridges along the route. The amount of excavation and construction that would be required to provide adequate clearances adds significantly to the total cost of the project.
A second significant physical constraint associated with the Midtown alignment is the need to cross TH55/Hiawatha Avenue. The grade separated crossing would need to occur in the area of E. 28th Street and is complex and difficult due to the number of businesses and transportation structures that exist in the area. The alternative assumes that the freight rail line is constructed at ground level and TH 55/Hiawatha Avenue as well as 28th Street are elevated 23 feet above ground level. The Hiawatha LRT
17
line would be reconstructed to cross over the elevated E. 28th Street at‐grade (at 23 feet above current grade) remaining elevated to cross over TH 55 and E. 26th Street then descend back to street level north of E. 26th. The proposed reconfiguration of structures in the area would result in the Hiawatha LRT being in conflict with the Sabo Bridge as it is presently configured. For purposes of this analysis, the Sabo Bridge is assumed to be reconstructed in this area at an elevation over the freight rail, the newly elevated TH 55 and 28th Street, and the Hiawatha LRT line. Additional design and engineering work would need to be conducted to determine exact elevations and bridge structures to accommodate the various transportation uses in the area. The at grade crossing of the Hiawatha LRT would be subject to review and approval by Met Council, which has jurisdiction over this transit line.
Freight Rail Operations
Route distance; Cologne ‐ CP St. Paul Yard ‐ MNNR Yard A – Cologne – 78.0 miles round‐trip. This assumes movement via CP’s Midway Subdivision in both directions.
Grades – The most difficult grade along this corridor is a 5800’ segment of 1.0% extending eastward from the Mississippi River bridge. On the return trip westward, a grade of 0.73% exists near St. Louis Park, however this grade is less than a mile in length meaning that it would not be a significant operational constraint. Grades exceeding 1% exist along CP’s Midway Subdivision in St. Paul, which would impact train operations when moving westward from St. Paul to Yard A.
Curvature – Maximum curvature encountered along the route is believed to be 3 degrees, with one such curve located near Lake Calhoun. Depending upon the design of the trackage near the Hiawatha Corridor, it may be necessary to construct curves of 4 degrees or more through that area in order to minimize overall project construction costs. The need for this would be determined during final design work.
Speed – The normal operating speed anticipated for TCWR trains along this route is expected to be 25 mph with the exception of the Mississippi River bridge which would be limited to 10 mph.
Bridges – Estimated costs for modifications to the Dean and E. Calhoun Pkwy structures in the Chain of Lakes area were added, due to clearance (width) issues on those structures.
Maintenance responsibility – It is assumed that TCWR would be responsible for ownership and maintenance of the newly constructed 4.4 miles of tracks from West Lake Street to TH 55/Hiawatha Avenue.
Trackage Rights – It is assumed that TCWR would utilize existing trackage rights on CP, BNSF, UP and MNNR and does not need to secure additional/new trackage rights.
Capacity issues ‐ Interference from freight traffic would be minimal along the portion of the route west of St. Paul. Along the majority of the route’s length, TCWR would be the sole operator. East of the Hiawatha Corridor, the Minnesota Commercial Railway currently leases the route and conducts operations on an as‐needed basis. Although MNNR’s activities could interfere with TCWR’s operations at times, the total amount of delay would not be expected to be significant. While operating on the trackage of other railroads in and around St. Paul, delays
18
from passenger and freight trains would be little changed from what is experienced today. The operation through Minneapolis would be greatly improved, however ‐ TCWR trains using the Midtown Corridor would avoid BNSF’s Wayzata Subdivision, the new Target Field Station and its associated passenger train traffic. This would remove a significant constraint upon TCWR’s operations now and in the future.
Train routing flexibility – From a connection onto CP Railway trackage at the west edge of St. Paul, TCWR’s trains could operate by way of the Midway Subdivision or north via Yard A to/from all points in the Twin Cities terminal area via trackage rights. This centralized access point would be nearly ideal for TCWR from an operational perspective.
Grain traffic to Savage – If demand for grain traffic to the elevators at Savage and/or Camden were to return, this alternative would most likely result in TCWR delivering the grain directly to the elevators via the St. Louis Park connection (crossing Louisiana Ave) and their CP trackage rights via the MN&S route as was done in the past. Although delivery of grain via this route would be physically possible in the future, it would not be efficient or cost effective for TCWR and would be noisy and disruptive for St. Louis Park residents.
Transportation System Impact The following items describe areas where the proposed route could have an impact upon the external transportation system:
Roads ‐The Midtown Corridor route between Cologne and Yard A in St. Paul would involve 29 public at‐grade crossings, 25 exist today and four are new.
The project requires the reconstruction of TH 55 to elevate it over the newly constructed freight rail tracks. In addition, 28th Street would also be elevated above current street level to intersect with TH 55 on an elevated structure. According to MnDOT records, in 2006 TH 55 carried approximately 50,000 trips on an average day. Those trips would need to be rerouted during the reconstruction of the roadways in the area.
Transitways ‐This alternative is in direct conflict with the proposed Midtown Streetcar, which is identified in the region’s TPP as a potential future transitway.
The project requires the reconstruction of the Hiawatha LRT from just south of E. 28th Street to a point north of E. 26th Street. The Hiawatha LRT line currently carries over 10 million trips annually. These users would need to find alternatives while the line is shut down for reconstruction.
Trails – While the majority of the existing Midtown Greenway commuter bicycle trail would remain in place some trail relocation would be necessary. The main impact to the Midtown Greenway commuter bicycle trail mentioned previously is the need to remove and reconstruct the recently opened Sabo bridge.
Acquisitions / Displacements
19
As far as displacements are concerned, the alignment of the rail line through the area that has been proposed in the initial review would require that one small industrial business be relocated. This building sits directly upon the alignment that is desired for the freight rail line east of Minnehaha Avenue. Relocation of this business would be preferable to the alternative which would involve excessively sharp curves for the railroad and/or additional property acquisitions or business relocations.
The analysis indicated that a total of 7 parcels of land would need to be acquired and that 1 commercial structure would need to be displaced in order to complete the project. No housing units would be impacted.
Estimated costs for property acquisitions & displacements The specific groupings of properties and structures that would be impacted by the construction have been identified in the “Midtown Corridor Cost Detail” exhibit that accompanies this report and cost estimates have been provided for each.
Construction Costs
Subgrade / earthworks –The segment requiring significant construction is from West Lake Street to TH 55/Hiawatha Avenue where the rail bed needs to be lowered through excavation by approximately six feet. The total cost for earthworks would be $10.6 million.
Track – It is assumed that approximately 4.4 miles of new track would be installed from West Lake Street to TH 55/Hiawatha Avenue. The entire length of the reconstructed line would be single‐track. The cost of installing track along this segment would be $4.9 million total, which includes purchase and installation of new track (rail, ties, fasteners, etc).
Bridges – The Dean Parkway and E. Calhoun Pkwy bridges will need to be reconstructed to accommodate both freight rail and the Midtown Greenway. In the area of TH 55/Hiawatha Avenue, several new roadway bridges would be required. A new 4‐lane highway bridge would carry Highway 55 over the freight rail line near the East 28th Street intersection. The Hiawatha Light Rail line would also pass over the newly constructed freight rail line and TH 55 on bridge structures. Reconstruction of the Sabo bicycle bridge has been included in the cost estimate based upon the assumption that the owner/operator will require it and/or it will be required due to the funding sources utilized to construct the bridge. It has been assumed that four recently constructed bridges along the Midtown Corridor would require modification to provide adequate overhead clearance. The total cost of bridges and other changes to public infrastructure necessary to complete this route alternative is estimated to be $80.4 million. . Crossings and crossing protection – It has been assumed that several at‐grade crossings would be re‐installed as part of the line replacement project. Crossings would be re‐installed at James, Irving, South 21st and Minnehaha Avenues. It would not be practical to re‐install the crossings at Humboldt and at S. 5th Avenues due to track / street elevation issues. The study assumes that all crossings installed would be equipped with modern, automatic crossing protection. Total costs in this category would be $1.4 million.
20
Signals and other electrical ‐ no railroad signal installations would be required.
Contingency costs – A factor of 30% has been added to estimated construction costs to cover the cost of mitigation and unforeseen costs that may arise during final design work and construction. That 30% factor equates to $38.4 million.
Other related costs – none.
Estimate of total project cost including contingencies: $195.6 million
Potential Environmental Risk
Earthwork ‐ Excavation of six feet of soil along an abandoned freight rail line is highly likely to encounter issues associated with contamination. If such conditions are encountered, disposal would add to project cost.
Potential Impact to Parkland ‐ The land underneath the bridges over Dean Parkway and E. Calhoun Parkway are owned by the Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board (MPRB) and is classified as parkland subject to federal 4(f) requirements. Any impact to parklands needs to be evaluated closely and coordinated must occur with the MPRB prior to any use of their land for a transportation project.
Midtown Corridor Historic Designation ‐ It is understood that any changes and/or modifications to the existing corridor must be approved by the State Historic Preservation Office.
Implementation Factors
Midtown Streetcar ‐ A significant drawback to the Midtown Corridor alignment is that it would prohibit the construction of a streetcar route along the Midtown Corridor The Midtown Corridor was purchased by Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority in 1997 for future rail transit. Three streetcar feasibility studies have been completed in the last 10 years. Metro Transit currently plans to include the Midtown Greenway‐Lake Street corridor in its 2011 Arterial Corridor Transit study with the results expected to feed into an Alternatives Analysis which is the first study required for Federal Transit Administration funding. The Midtown Community Works Partnership and Midtown Greenway Coalition are both active advocates for a streetcar in the Midtown Corridor.
Freight rail tracks along the Midtown Corridor would be in conflict with the Community’s vision of passenger rail transit. The “Trench” was originally constructed as a rail corridor with rail freight service resulting in development of industrial uses alongside the corridor. However, it has seen those uses transition to residential, retail and office space in recent years, with existing buildings renovated, parking lots developed and new buildings that open onto the new Midtown Greenway. Streetcar service operating along the length of the corridor is seen as a key to stimulating transit oriented development along the Midtown Greenway‐Lake Street corridor. Freight rail relocation through the Midtown Corridor seems likely to face
21
significant stakeholder opposition given the extent of organization and advocacy over the last decade for a very different Midtown Greenway vision.
Please refer to the Midtown Community Works Partnership and Midtown Greenway Coalition resolutions that have been provided in the Exhibit section.
Hiawatha LRT‐ As the owner and operator of the Hiawatha LRT line, the Metropolitan Council would need to agree to allow for the freight rail project to fund the reconstruction of the Hiawatha LRT line in the vicinity of TH 55/Hiawatha Avenue. In addition, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), the federal agency with oversight over federally funded New Starts projects would need to agree to the reconstruction. The reconstruction could have a significant impact upon transit ridership in the short term during the reconstruction process and operations in the long‐term depending upon the design of the new structure for the LRT line. In addition, FTA and the Metropolitan Council would need to agree to operate over an active freight rail line and also agree to a bike trail operating on a structure over the LRT line. These situations do exist across the country and in this region, so it may be possible, but requires coordination and agreement.
Sabo Bicycle Bridge ‐ The City of Minneapolis owns and operates the Midtown Greenway and the Sabo Bicylce Bridge. The bridge was funded through a combination of Federal SAFETEA‐LU and Hennepin County funds.
Due to the unique character and function of the bridge as well as the funding sources, it is assumed that the Sabo Bicycle Bridge will be reconstructed in the area. Further design and engineering would work need to be conducted to determine the exact location of the replaced bridge.
Trackage Rights ‐ The specifics of the track lease agreement between owner Canadian Pacific and tenant Minnesota Commercial Railway for the trackage east of the Hiawatha Corridor are not known. For TCWR to use this route they would need to secure trackage rights from CP and MNNR.
Track Ownership & Maintenance ‐ It is assumed that TCWR would own and maintain the new tracks in the Midtown Corridor from West Lake Street to S. 26th Avenue.
Permits/Agreements ‐ It is expected that completion of the route as proposed would necessarily involve, at a minimum, the involvement of the following private parties and governmental agencies: Twin Cities & Western Railway Canadian Pacific Railroad Minnesota Commercial Railway Businesses displaced by the project Midtown Greenway Coalition The City of Minneapolis Hennepin County Minnesota DOT
22
Summary While it may be possible to reinstall the abandoned freight rail tracks along the Midtown Corridor between West Lake Street and TH 55/Hiawatha Avenue, there are significant barriers to implementation. Those barriers include the level and degree of excavation required in the corridor, the complex and complicated juncture of roads, freight rail, trail and LRT in the vicinity of the Hiawatha Corridor; and the conflict with local and regional plans to utilize the corridor for a future transitway.
In addition, there is a risk associated with implementation of this alternative because it requires that the private freight rail companies enter into a trackage rights agreement over which public agencies have no control; it assumes that MnDOT, FHWA, FRA, and Hennepin County will agree to and issue permits for the reconstruction of roadways with grade separations with freight rail; it assumes that FTA and Met Council will agree to reconstruction of the Hiawatha LRT line; it assumes that the FHWA will agree to demolition and reconstruction of the Sabo bridge; it assumes there will be no constructive use of MPRB land which lies under the Dean Parkway and E. Calhoun Parkway bridges; and, it assumes that the SHPO will allow the approximately six foot excavation and reinstallation of freight rail tracks in the Midtown Corridor which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
Summary of estimated costs:
Total acquisition costs $6,025,375 Construction $128,118,425 Engineering, Design, Admin $23,061,316 Contingency Factor $38,435,527 Total $195,640,643
2.4 Highway 169 Connector The “Highway 169 Connector” alternative, as shown in the Exhibit section, assumes that an abandoned Burlington Northern branchline that ran roughly parallel to Hwy 169. This alignment would allow TCWR to reach the Twin Cities Metro area by cutting across from the existing CP Rail trackage in Hopkins northeastward to a connection with BNSF’s Wayzata Subdivision mainline near Louisiana Avenue in St. Louis Park. After a review of engineering documents, aerial photos, and a field inspection, it was concluded that the alternative requires the following: existing TCWR and CP Rail trackage from Cologne, through Chanhassen to a point near the TH 169 overpass in Hopkins, a 2.7 mile segment of new track that would be installed on abandoned Burlington Northern right‐of‐way to connect the CP trackage with the BNSF Wayzata Subdivision main track to the northeast. existing BNSF trackage eastward into Minneapolis where TCWR would connect with the Twin Cities terminal network.
Evaluation Measures
23
Sound Engineering
Railroad bridges – Re‐activation of the former Burlington Northern branchline would require only one significant railroad structure. To complete the project, it would be necessary to construct a bridge over Minnehaha Creek at a location just north of W. 36th Street in St. Louis Park.
Freight Rail Operations
Route distance ‐ The round trip route distance for this alternative from Cologne to St. Paul is 81.2 miles. This assumes movement via CP’s Merriam Park Subdivision in both directions.
Grades – There are no significant grades along this route for eastward trains. On the return trip westward, grades of just over 0.8% exist near Cedar Lake on BNSF’s Wayzata Subdivision, however this grade is less than a mile in length meaning that it would not be a significant operational constraint. Grades exceeding 1% exist along BNSF’s Midway Subdivision in St. Paul, which would impact train operations when moving westward from St. Paul to Yard A.
Curvature – Maximum curvature encountered along the route would be approximately 6 degrees, at the point where the route would curve beneath Highway 169 in Hopkins.
Speed – The normal operating speed anticipated for TCWR trains along this route is 25 mph.
Maintenance responsibility ‐ It is assumed that TCWR would own and maintain the portion of the route with new tracks through Hopkins and St. Louis Park.
Trackage Rights – The proposed route would utilize trackage rights over BNSF’s Wayzata Subdivision east of the connection that would be built just west of Louisiana Avenue in St. Louis Park. It is anticipated that trackage rights for TCWR along this segment could be obtained with little difficulty since they presently have an agreement along this same route, east of Cedar Lake Jct. However, it is possible that there could be some cost associated with the right to use the segment over and above normal trackage rights fees. If this were to occur, it would likely come in the form of a requirement by BNSF that funds be provided to cover capacity enhancements along the corridor to cover the additional TCWR train mileage. No costs were included in this initial project estimate to cover this contingency. If BNSF were to require an investment in capacity as part of the agreement, the amount is not expected to be significant in terms of the overall project.
Capacity issues – While operating on the trackage of other railroads in and around the Twin Cities area, delays from passenger and freight trains would be little changed from what is experienced today. The principal change from today’s operation is that TCWR would connect with BNSF’s Wayzata Subdivision farther west ‐ approximately 3.3 miles beyond the present connection at Cedar Lake Jct. If no enhancements are made to BNSF’s capacity, this would likely cause some additional amount of delay while moving on BNSF.
24
Train routing flexibility – TCWR’s connections to points throughout the Twin Cities terminal area would be very much as they are today.
Grain traffic to Savage – This alternative does not provide for a direct connection to the Port of Savage for grain deliveries and instead assumes that TCWR would continue to use the existing switching wye in St. Louis Park to transport grain to/from the Port of Savage.
Transportation System Impact
The following items describe areas where the proposed route could have an impact upon the external transportation system:
Roads ‐This alternative would have 27 at‐grade crossings, 21 existing and six new, between Cologne and St. Paul. Of the six new at‐grade grade crossings two would be located in Hopkins and four in St. Louis Park. The north end of the Highway 169 overhead bridge would need to be altered, due to the location of the supporting columns relative to the ideal track alignment. The northbound ramps of TH 169 at Excelsior Blvd. would need to be reconfigured and the on‐ ramp would require a bridge over the freight track.
Existing & Planned Transitways – This alternative would be in conflict with the proposed alignment for the SWLRT through this area. Depending on the final alignment that is chosen, this issue could increase the cost of this alternative significantly.
Trails ‐This alternative assumes that the North Cedar Lake Trail owned and operated by Three Rivers Park District would be relocated.
Acquisitions / Displacements
The former BN right‐ of‐ way that would be used to connect the CP Rail and BNSF tracks near TH 169 is owned by a variety of entities,, including the cities of Hopkins and St. Louis Park. Significant portions of the alignment are occupied by residential and business structures that would be in direct conflict with reinstallation of the track structure. The most significant structure along the alignment is a high‐rise apartment building located just south of W. 36th Street in St. Louis Park. A second significant structure is an industrial property located at the extreme north end of the alignment. The most complex area that would be encountered by the project would be east of Virginia Ave. South, where the alignment would pass through a recently constructed townhome development.
The analysis indicated that a total of 65 parcels of land would need to be acquired and that 34 structures ‐ including 131 individual housing units ‐ would need to be displaced in order to complete the project.
Estimated costs for property acquisitions & displacements The specific groupings of properties and structures that would be impacted by the construction have been identified in the “Highway 169 Connector Cost Detail” exhibit that accompanies this report and cost estimates have been provided for each.
25
Construction Costs
Subgrade / earthworks – To implement this alternative requires earthwork for the 2,7 miles of abandoned BN line parallel to TH 169. Construction of the line would require that the roadbed be lowered at certain locations to permit rail equipment to pass safely beneath overhead bridges. In addition, it would be necessary to modify the contour of certain existing embankments along the route, installing retaining walls where necessary. Total earthworks costs are estimated to be $6.4 million, which includes the cost of grading, embankments and all excavation associated with the lowering of the right of way near Highway 169.
Track – This alternative assumes that 2.7 miles of new tracks are installed between the CP line in Hopkins and the BNSF Wayzata Subdivision. The estimated cost of all track and track components is $3.0 million, which includes purchase and installation of new track along the 14,000 foot length of the right of way.
Bridges – This alternative assumes that the north end of the TH 169 overhead bridge would need to be altered, due to the location of the supporting columns relative to the ideal track alignment. The northbound ramps of TH 169 at Excelsior Blvd. would need to be reconfigured and the on‐ ramp to TH 169 would need to be elevated on a structure to clear the tracks. Since the freight rail was abandoned on the BN line, the Minnetonka Blvd. bridge has been reconstructed and, while it is high enough, it would need to be replaced with a different structure that could accommodate rail traffic. A single railroad bridge would be required, crossing Minnehaha Creek just north of W. 36th Street. The total cost of those bridges and other projects associated with the alignment is estimated to be $19.6 million.
Crossings and crossing protection – This alternative assumes that six new at‐grade crossings would be installed and they would be equipped with modern, automatic crossing protection. The total cost of the crossings and crossing protection would be approximately $1.6 million.
Signals and other electrical – This alternative assumes that $1.2 million is needed to cover the cost of signals associated with the switch that would connect to BNSF’s Wayzata Subdivision.
Contingency costs ‐ A 30% factor was applied to both scenarios to cover the cost of mitigation and other unforeseen costs.
Other related costs – There is a cell phone tower located on the right‐of‐way immediately north of the Hwy 7 overpass in St. Louis Park. This cell phone tower would need to be relocated as part of the project. The cost of the tower & property is estimated to be $325,800.
Estimate of total project cost including contingencies: $121.7 million
Potential Environmental Risk
26
Earthwork ‐ Excavation planned along this abandoned freight rail line could potentially encounter issues associated with contamination. If such conditions are encountered, disposal would add to project cost.
Implementation Factors
Trackage rights‐To implement this alternative TCWR must secure trackage rights from the BNSF to enter/exit the BNSF Wayzata Subdivision approximately 3.3 miles west of where they enter currently.
Track Ownership and Maintenance ‐ To implement this alternative TCWR must agree to own and maintain the 2.7 miles of new trackage installed to provide the connection between the CP Bass Lake Spur and the BNSF Wayzata Subdivision.
Roadways ‐ To implement this alternative, MnDOT and FHWA must agree to the freight rail project funding modifications to TH 169.
To implement this alternative, Hennepin County must agree to the freight rail project funding modifications to Excelsior Boulevard.
Permits/Agreements ‐ It is expected that completion of the route as proposed would necessarily involve, at a minimum, the involvement of the following private parties and governmental agencies: Twin Cities & Western Railway Canadian Pacific Railroad BNSF Railway Businesses displaced by the project Homeowners displaced by the project The City of Hopkins The City of St. Louis Park Hennepin County Minnesota DOT
Summary While it may be possible to reinstall the abandoned freight rail tracks along the TH 169 corridor between Excelsior Boulevard and the BNSF Wayzata Subdivision, there are significant barriers to implementation. Those barriers include the level and number of property acquisitions, and the potential impact to the TH 169/Excelsior Boulevard interchange.
In addition, this alternative requires that the private freight rail companies enter into a trackage rights agreement over which public agencies have no control; it assumes that MnDOT, FHWA, FRA, and Hennepin County will agree to and issue permits for the reconstruction of roadways with grade separations with freight rail; and, it assumes that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District will agree to a new crossing of the Minnehaha Creek.
Summary of estimated costs:
27
Total acquisition costs $72,577,048 Construction $33,163,744 Engineering, Design, Admin $5,969,474 Contingency Factor $9,949,123 Total $121,659,390
28
Terms and abbreviations appearing in this report:
(listed in alphabetical order) abandonment – a process that authorizes service on a particular rail line to be discontinued. BN – the Burlington Northern railroad, now BNSF BNSF – BNSF Railway company branchline – a secondary rail route that is usually stub‐ended. CP – the Canadian Pacific Railroad Company curve – the sharpness of a railroad curve is normally expressed in degrees; higher numbers indicate tighter/sharper curves. earthworks – construction work related to moving and contouring soil and other earth materials. EIS – Environmental Impact Statement EMV – Estimated Market Value FRA – Federal Railroad Administration grade – a change in elevation of a track, expressed in percentage terms; 1% = 1 foot of rise for every 100 feet of track length. HCRRA – Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority interchange – a location where cars are exchanged between different railroad companies. LRT – Light Rail Transit main track – the principal track used by trains. Milwaukee Road – a railroad company that operated through the Twin Cities for much of the last century; most of their trackage is now owned and operated by Canadian Pacific (CP). MNNR – initials for the Minnesota Commercial Railway Company, based in the Twin Cities. MPRB – Minnesota Parks and Recreation Board PCA – Pollution Control Agency ROW – Right of Way; the strip of property where tracks are located. SHPO – State Historic Preservation Office STB – the U.S. Government’s Surface Transportation Board; the body that oversees many RR business activities such as mergers, abandonments, maximum price levels, etc. subgrade ‐ this is the native material (dirt, rock, etc) that is in place beneath the track structure along a railroad right‐of‐way. TCWR – the Twin Cities & Western Railroad trackage rights – authority to operate trains over track owned or controlled by another entity; such as when TCWR operates its trains over CP’s trackage. unit train – a single shipment moving as a complete train from origin to destination without being broken up. UP – the Union Pacific railroad.
Chaska Cut-Off Overview Chaska Cut-Off Map Midtown Map Highway 169 Connection Map
RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF MIDTOWN GREENWAY – LAKE STREET CORRIDOR STREETCAR PLANNING
WHEREAS, the Midtown Community Works Partnership has since 2003 supported the long-term goal of streetcar transit in the Midtown Greenway, and reaffirmed this goal annually since 2003;
WHEREAS, the Partnership organized a study tour of the streetcar system in Portland, Oregon from September 7-9, 2006, and the Partnership’s delegation reported the following Findings:
Findings
1. The Portland Streetcar has been extraordinarily successful in leveraging transit-oriented development: $2.5 billion and over 7,000 housing units;
2. Portland’s streetcar project was promoted, constructed, and now is operated by Portland Streetcar, Inc., a non-profit corporation with a board of directors comprised primarily of property owners and developers along the line;
3. Portland leaders believe that their public private partnership approach was critical to project success, and specifically influenced project design, construction, and funding decisions;
4. Portland leaders strongly recommend against pursuing federal FTA funding for streetcars because of the attendant process delays and cost inflation;
5. The Portland Streetcar system is now operated in partnership with the region’s transit agency, Tri-Met, but was developed primarily through the City’s leadership.
6. The primary purpose and focus of Portland’s Streetcar has been to leverage residential development in the urban core and to provide an intra-city connector service; it does not claim a time advantage for regional commuters;
WHEREAS, the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority is currently analyzing two configurations for the northern portion of the Southwest LRT Corridor: LRT A, which runs through the Kenilworth Corridor, and (2) LRT C, which runs east through the Midtown Greenway to Nicollet Avenue, where it turns north and enters a tunnel for access to downtown Minneapolis;
WHEREAS, the Midtown Community Works Partnership believes that the superior configuration would be a Network Alignment, which combines LRT A with a streetcar line in the Midtown Greenway that links the SW LRT with the Hiawatha LRT, based on the following reasons:
1. A Network Alignment would provide a key link in the regional transit system.
2. A Network Alignment would serve the transit-dependent Greenway neighborhoods east of Nicollet, including one of the largest employment hubs in Minnesota (consisting of Lake Street, the Midtown Exchange, Abbott Northwestern Hospital, and Wells Fargo) while also serving as an important transfer point with Bus Rapid Transit on I-35W;
3. A Network Alignment alternative that includes a streetcar line in the Midtown Greenway would be significantly less expensive than LRT C, and generate significantly higher ridership;
WHEREAS, a “starter” streetcar line between Hiawatha and Uptown could be built much more quickly by relying on state and local funding, thereby avoiding the cumbersome FTA approval process; and
WHEREAS, the sooner it is built, the sooner a streetcar line will energize and propel transit-oriented development along the Midtown Greenway;
WHEREAS, state and local funding for a streetcar line may serve as a match for later federal funding for LRT;
WHEREAS, a streetcar line would sustain the vision for the Midtown Greenway by minimizing the impact on the bicycle and pedestrian trails while providing the potential to green the corridor with grass planted between and alongside the tracks;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Midtown Community Works Partnership adopts the following concepts to guide its planning and policy in support of the Midtown Greenway – Lake Street Corridor streetcar:
1. Acknowledge that streetcar development is appropriately lead by the City of Minneapolis (in cooperation with Hennepin County, Metro Transit, and other agency partners), given that the primary purposes of streetcar lines are to serve as intra-city connectors, and to promote transit-oriented development, and a streetcar system is not currently included in the Region’s 2030 Transportation Policy Plan;
2 2. Acknowledge that it is critical to study aggressively and creatively to develop a viable, sustainable model of financial feasibility to assure that a streetcar project can be funded through a method that cultivates and maintains maximum stakeholder support;
3. Acknowledge that federal and state funding may not be a priority for Midtown streetcar development, and streetcar advocates should focus primarily on local sources of revenue, while remaining open to possible federal and state funding opportunities so long as they do not jeopardize other local and regional transportation priorities;
4. Acknowledge that the private sector, developers, business owners, employers, and others who would benefit from a streetcar should play an active role in project financial analysis, advocacy, design, construction, and operation;
5. Acknowledge that a ‘public private partnership’ approach is critical to project success.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Midtown Community Works Partnership supports the following actions to promote streetcar development in the Midtown Greenway – Lake Street Corridor:
a. Recruit new partners to the Partnership who have a development interest in the Corridor and are interested in promotion of a streetcar project;
b. Direct counsel to monitor and participate in the City’s Streetcar Study, and provide the City’s consultants with information to promote the Midtown Corridor as a priority streetcar line that connects the Southwest and Hiawatha Regional transit corridors while also promotes intra-city transit and related development;
c. Participate in general outreach to promote the public understanding of the benefits of a streetcar system in Minneapolis;
d. Gather existing information and estimates of development potential in the Corridor over the next ten years;
e. Research initial models of local streetcar funding, including a special services district; explore private sector, property owner feedback; and develop an understanding of the implications of each funding alternative in the context of our overall tax system;
f. Participate in the Southwest Corridor alignment discussion, and:
3 i. Promote the “network alignment” option for LRT – Streetcar alignment; and
ii. Promote a “streetcar ASAP” approach that seeks to build a Midtown Streetcar line earlier and independent from the SW LRT timetable but is compatible with the SW LRT alignment decision.
Attest:
Nate Garvis, Chair Midtown Community Works Partnership
Date: November 21, 2006
4
Twin Cities Area Map
MNDOT Hwy 41 Crossing
R.L. BANKS & ASSOCIATES, INC. 2107 Wilson Blvd., Suite 750, Arlington, VA 22201 703.276.7522 703.276.7732 (Fax) [email protected]
6 Beach Road, #250 Tiburon, CA 94920-0250 415.889.5106 415.889.5104 (Fax) [email protected] ______www.rlbadc.com
August 5, 2010
Memorandum
To: Ms. Katie Walker, Transit Project Manager Ms. Ia Xiong, Administrative Manager Housing, Community Works, & Transit Hennepin County Public Works 417 North Fifth Street, Suite 320 Minneapolis, MN 55401
From: Francis Loetterle, Ph. D., AICP, Director – Transportation Planning Walt Schuchmann, Vice-President – Operations Planning
Subject: Twin Cities and Western Railroad Summary of Train Operations
The Twin Cities and Western Railroad Company (TC&W) is a regional rail system operating 234 miles of railroad between the Twin Cities to the east and Appleton on the west (Figure 1)1. TC&W’s operating headquarters is at Glencoe. Operating crews are based at Glencoe, Montevideo, Winthrop and Hopkins.
Operations commenced July 27, 1991 over what was formerly known as the “Ortonville Line” operated by the Soo Line (now Canadian Pacific Railway) between Minneapolis/St. Paul, MN and Milbank, SD. Prior to TC&W and Soo Line operation of this line, it was part of the Milwaukee Road’s Main line to the Pacific Northwest. This main line was originally built in the 1870’s by the Hastings & Dakota Railway.2
1 http://www.aar.org/~/media/AAR/InCongress_RailroadsStates/Minnesota.ashx 2 http://www.tcwr.net/general-public-2/company-overview/ 2
Figure 1
Source: http://www.tcwr.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/tcw-service-map.pdf
TC&W interchanges directly with the following railroads operating in the Minneapolis/St. Paul area including:
. Canadian Pacific Railway . Union Pacific Railroad . Minnesota Commercial Railway and . Progressive Rail Incorporated.
TC & W interchanges carload freight with the following railroads via the Minnesota Commercial Railway:
. BNSF Railway . CN
Other connections include:
. BNSF Railway at Appleton MN; . Sisseton Milbank Railroad (SMRR) at Milbank, SD;
7/22/10 3
. Minnesota Commercial Railway at St. Paul, and . Progressive Rail (via CPRS) at Lakeville and Bloomington.
TC & W receives unit coal trains directly from BNSF in downtown Minneapolis.
The TC&W owns and operates the Minnesota Prairie Line, Inc. (MPL). MPL is the agent/operator of 94 miles of track between Norwood and Hanley Falls, MN, which is owned by the Minnesota Valley Regional Railroad Authority.3 TCW and MPL connect at Norwood, MN.
TC&W’s traffic base consists largely of coal, grains (corn, wheat, barley), soybeans, sugar, beet pulp pellets, lumber and other forest products, canned vegetables, edible beans, molasses, distillers dried grain (DDGs), fertilizers, crushed rock and agricultural machinery.4 Principal shippers/receivers on the TC&W include:
. An ethanol plant in Granite Falls; . A sugar beet plant at Reubel; . Grain elevators at several locations and . An ethanol plant in Winthrop (on the MPL).
Operations
TCW operates several crews daily on the western portions of its lines serving customers and consolidating railcars for movement to the Twin Cities.
Six days per week a westbound train departs Hopkins in the evening to take inbound cars from connecting railroads in the Twin Cities to Glencoe. At Glencoe, the inbound cars are exchanged for outbound cars assembled from customers on both TC&W lines and those cars are brought east to Hopkins. Early the next morning, two TC&W crews come on duty at Hopkins and split the previous night’s train from Glencoe into two local delivery trains. One of these trains is bound for the Canadian Pacific’s St. Paul Yard. The other train is bound for Minnesota Commercial’s Main Rail Yard in the Midway and Union Pacific’s Western Avenue Yard. The CP connection handles up to about 80 cars per day and the MNCR/UP train handles about 30 cars. Both of these crews proceed east from Hopkins to the Twin Cites, normally traversing the Kenilworth Corridor around 8:00 am. The crews exchange cars with connecting railroads during the day and make their way back to Hopkins, normally passing through the Kenilworth Corridor in the afternoon. The time that these crews return varies significantly but typically occurs between 4 pm and 8 pm. The variation in the return time is affected by how quickly the crews are able to exchange cars with the connecting carriers and upon how much conflicting rail traffic is encountered at the destination yards and on the trips to and from. This pattern may be augmented by extra movements on Sunday when the traffic volume warrants.
In addition to the regular pattern of operations described above, TC&W operates approximately one loaded and one empty ethanol unit train per week and about two loaded and two empty coal
3 http://www.tcwr.net/general-public-2/company-overview/ 4 Ibid.
7/22/10 4
trains per month. Ethanol unit trains are typically 80 cars in length. These trains do not run at a fixed time of day but rather are operated at the convenience of the major connecting railroads. These trains all use the Kenilworth Corridor except for the empty coal trains which are delivered to BNSF at Appleton.
Other types of trains may be operated as business becomes available. For example, in recent years TC&W operated a dedicated train of intermodal containers on flatcars between an intermodal grain loading facility at Montevideo and the CP Shoreham Yard. This train carried identity preserved grains and would typically operate through the Kenilworth Corridor at night. Also, TC&W at times delivers loaded cars originated on its lines to a barge terminal at Savage or to a barge terminal at Camden for transloading. This movement occurs or doesn’t depending upon the relative prices of grain and grain transportation.
As a smaller regional railroad, it is necessary for TC&W to mesh its operations with those of its much larger connecting railroads, especially CP and UP. TC&W’s current operating pattern is based upon the need to deliver outbound cars to connecting railroads in the morning so that they may be switched and incorporated into outbound trains scheduled later in the day. Similarly, inbound cars for TC&W tend to arrive at the connecting yards at night and are switched and available for TCW crews to pick up during first shift the next day. Hence the operation through the Kenilworth Corridor of both TCW’s daily freight trains and the ethanol and coal trains is determined by the operating requirements of TC&W’s major connections.
Between Interstate County Highway 62 and Lake Street, the TC&W operates on track owned by the CP. Between Lake Street and Cedar Lake Junction, the TC&W operates on track owned by the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority.
East of Cedar Lake Junction, TC&W uses the tracks of other railroads to reach the interchange yards mentioned above or the Camden barge terminal. At Cedar Lake Junction, eastbound TC&W trains enter the BNSF Wayzata Subdivision. TC&W eastbound trains hold at Cedar Lake Junction or Cedar Lake Parkway (depending upon train length and where the train can hold without blocking any street crossings) until advised over the radio by the BNSF dispatcher that they have permission to enter BNSF trackage and proceed east. BNSF cooperates with TC&W to expedite TC&W’s movement but if traffic is heavy on the single-track BNSF line, TC&W crews must wait for it to clear.
To transfer to the CP tracks running north-south through St. Louis Park the TC&W utilizes the steeply graded switchback sidings at ‘Skunk Hollow’ in the vicinity of Louisiana Avenue. Longer trains must be broken into shorter sections in order to make this transfer. TC&W uses this interchange point to reach the Savage barge terminal. Due to current market conditions, this movement is not currently occurring but could resume if market conditions favoring movement of grain by barge develop. The TC&W also uses this interchange point for locomotive maintenance movements and to interchange with Progressive Rail Incorporated.
Although TC&W does not handle any doublestack container traffic at this time5, it does have sufficient vertical clearances on its lines to do so.
5 The identity preserved grain movement used single-stacked containers on flatcars.
7/22/10